Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 01:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles

 * – (View MfD)

I find this a remnant from an earlier time in human history when reptiles and amphibians were considered the same class of animal. They are in fact distinct, and it would be more natural to put them in separate WikiProjects. Georgia guy (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - there is no requirement for monophyly for wikiprojects. The WP is active and there is no need to delete nor split.  --awkwafaba (📥) 14:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep: splitting into two projects results in the fragmentation of an already-slim editor base in this topic area. Splitting wouldn't help productivity but would likely hurt it. Enwebb (talk) 14:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. Herpetology is an established field of scientific study and the topic of some leading textbooks. While I wouldn't strongly oppose separate projects there is considerable overlap in interests of people interested in reptiles and amphibians and a relatively small project would be divided further. Dinosaurs and Turtles already have their own projects because of special interests by editors. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But why can't we adopt using herpetology to mean the study of reptiles and batrachology (which has its own Wikipedia article) to mean the study of amphibians?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would we do that? Herpetology is the study of reptiles and amphibians, not reptiles alone. While the two were grouped together by Linnaeus, it has been known they are separate groups for a long time. Scientists and museums have continued to use herpetology for the two groups together. It's not for us to change the meaning of herpetology. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please use the point of view that "we" in my question refers to anglophones in general, not just Wikipedians. Georgia guy (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do we continue to use the word "fish", when hagfish, sharks and bony fish are more distantly related than amphibians and reptiles? Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is supposed to follow consensus usage, not attempt to lead it. Perhaps in the future herpetology will be restricted to the study of (some subset of) reptiles - fungi and bacteria are no longer part of the scope of botany - but currently it's scope is herptiles. And even if usage had changed that would be insufficient justification to delete the project. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. starsandwhales (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the "oppose" comments above. Decisions about the scope of a wikiproject should generally be made by the editors participating in that project. In any event, even if it were desirable to split this project into two, that would not be accomplished by this nomination which seeks to delete the project altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Splitting a project in 2 may or may not require deleting the original project's title, depending on whether one of the 2 new projects has the same name as the original; in this case it doesn't. Georgia guy (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. For starters, even if the WikiProject were to be split, deletion would be a very bad option. We would lose a decade and a half of history and mess up who knows how many incoming links. I very strongly oppose any deletion here. As for the proposal to split the project - that's a discussion for the participants of AAR. As for the phylogenetic concerns - if that was the logic we were using, we'd have to merge WikiProject Birds into WikiProject Dinosaurs. Guettarda (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You must be saying: Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, with respect to how it classifies its articles' subjects when it comes to putting them together in Wikiprojects. Georgia guy (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not saying that. What about my comment leads you to that conclusion? Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And break WikiProject Algae into at least five. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * FWIW, "Reptiles" isn't a monophyletic group either. Guettarda (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for at least two reasons. First, the project doesn't need splitting if it is reasonably active, and it appears that it is.  Although reptiles and amphibians have been separate biological classes for nearly two centuries, they are commonly thought of as closely related.  Second, deleting the project would be the wrong way to split it if it did need splitting.  By the way, are we assuming that Oppose means Keep?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was reading the prompt more about proposing a split of the project into two, to which I am strongly opposed. But as this is a MfD, I have reworded my !vote as keep. Enwebb (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The structure of article space should serve the users; the structure of project space should serve the editors. Deleting a project because its scope isn't a clade doesn't serve the editors, and sets a bad precedent. (There are other projects covering paraphyletic, or even polyphyletic, groups.) While grades and guilds are no longer using in determining classification, they are still genuine subjects of study. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Deleting this project would break all of the links from articles in this project. Plus, reptiles are a paraphyletic group anyways, but breaking all of it up would be tedious and unnecessary. In addition, there are resources and links on the project that would be gone if this project was deleted. starsandwhales (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)